Popular vote agreement is gutless and lazy
Published in the Boulder Daily Camera, 2/1/19
Democracy is a strange animal. To make it work, getting the devil out of the details isn't always easy. In America today, for example, we're having trouble figuring out what "the majority rules" means. Whose votes do we count to elect the president?
Instead of simply counting the votes of all American voters, our Founding Fathers cooked up the Electoral College system. In part, the Electoral College supported their view that state governments should make their own decisions about how to exert their influence in selecting a President. This system also gave states with smaller populations a bump in their influence over who becomes president. Without this, the smaller colonies wouldn't have joined the United States.
Mostly, the Electoral College system works fine and, with the exception of a few elections, the Electoral College selection reflected the popular vote. When it didn't, Americans shrugged and moved on. Then Donald Trump got elected and lots of Democrats got mad as hell and couldn't take it anymore. They want the popular vote to decide who's president, and they want it now.
So, states across America, including Colorado, are considering ways to change the presidential election to a popular vote. Our state leaders' willingness to sacrifice some of Colorado's influence during presidential elections to hand power to the majority of all Americans is a noble goal. However, the path the Colorado legislature is taking to achieve this goal is not noble. What they are doing is a sham and a bad idea from the start.
The bill under consideration would allow the state of Colorado to enter into an agreement with other states where we would all promise to cast all of our Electoral College votes for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who our state's voters chose. If enough states sign on, then the Electoral College will always pick the winner of the popular vote.
Sounds simple, right? Boy, is it ever not that simple.
For starters, our Founding Fathers didn't look favorably upon the idea of a bunch of states getting together and making deals to get around doing the hard work of amending the Constitution. So the Constitution clearly states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." So, this electoral agreement would need to be supported by 60 U.S. senators including many from states with smaller populations who would be voting to substantially disenfranchise their voters during a presidential election to give more power to states like California, New York and Texas. Not gonna happen.
Plus, while a constitutional amendment would be a permanent change, this Electoral Agreement kluge would be subject to the political whims of all the states that are part of it, not to mention the vagaries of the U.S. Congress. Can you imagine the game playing that would go on every presidential election year as these political bodies tried to figure out whether it's of greater political value to stay in or out of the agreement?
But, the real nightmare scenario is that, when push comes to shove, states will back out of the deal after the popular vote and before the Electoral College meets six weeks later. While the electoral agreement makes states promise they won't do that, can you imagine the pressure on, for example, our state to get out of the agreement if our electoral votes would elect Trump over Bernie Sanders in 2020? In this scenario, this pact between states becomes the means by which neither the popular vote nor the current Electoral College vote would predictably determine who becomes the president.
One can only imagine the chaos. Resistance, meet the Revolution.
If the Colorado legislature sincerely wants to do something to help ensure that presidents are elected by the popular vote, they have real options within reach that could effect real change. First, Colorado can be the first state to call for a constitutional convention on the topic. We've amended the U.S. Constitution 37 times in our history, including changes to how America votes. Get to work. If that sounds too hard, then the Colorado legislature can change our laws to allocate our electoral votes in proportion to the votes each candidate received within the state. Some states already do this and, if every state did, the popular vote would win. Lead by example.
This electoral agreement is not noble at all. It's gutless and lazy. If our state legislators are serious about changing how America chooses presidents, then they should do serious things to get it done, not take symbolic actions doomed to fail.
Democracy is a strange animal. To make it work, getting the devil out of the details isn't always easy. In America today, for example, we're having trouble figuring out what "the majority rules" means. Whose votes do we count to elect the president?
Instead of simply counting the votes of all American voters, our Founding Fathers cooked up the Electoral College system. In part, the Electoral College supported their view that state governments should make their own decisions about how to exert their influence in selecting a President. This system also gave states with smaller populations a bump in their influence over who becomes president. Without this, the smaller colonies wouldn't have joined the United States.
Mostly, the Electoral College system works fine and, with the exception of a few elections, the Electoral College selection reflected the popular vote. When it didn't, Americans shrugged and moved on. Then Donald Trump got elected and lots of Democrats got mad as hell and couldn't take it anymore. They want the popular vote to decide who's president, and they want it now.
So, states across America, including Colorado, are considering ways to change the presidential election to a popular vote. Our state leaders' willingness to sacrifice some of Colorado's influence during presidential elections to hand power to the majority of all Americans is a noble goal. However, the path the Colorado legislature is taking to achieve this goal is not noble. What they are doing is a sham and a bad idea from the start.
The bill under consideration would allow the state of Colorado to enter into an agreement with other states where we would all promise to cast all of our Electoral College votes for the winner of the popular vote regardless of who our state's voters chose. If enough states sign on, then the Electoral College will always pick the winner of the popular vote.
Sounds simple, right? Boy, is it ever not that simple.
For starters, our Founding Fathers didn't look favorably upon the idea of a bunch of states getting together and making deals to get around doing the hard work of amending the Constitution. So the Constitution clearly states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." So, this electoral agreement would need to be supported by 60 U.S. senators including many from states with smaller populations who would be voting to substantially disenfranchise their voters during a presidential election to give more power to states like California, New York and Texas. Not gonna happen.
Plus, while a constitutional amendment would be a permanent change, this Electoral Agreement kluge would be subject to the political whims of all the states that are part of it, not to mention the vagaries of the U.S. Congress. Can you imagine the game playing that would go on every presidential election year as these political bodies tried to figure out whether it's of greater political value to stay in or out of the agreement?
But, the real nightmare scenario is that, when push comes to shove, states will back out of the deal after the popular vote and before the Electoral College meets six weeks later. While the electoral agreement makes states promise they won't do that, can you imagine the pressure on, for example, our state to get out of the agreement if our electoral votes would elect Trump over Bernie Sanders in 2020? In this scenario, this pact between states becomes the means by which neither the popular vote nor the current Electoral College vote would predictably determine who becomes the president.
One can only imagine the chaos. Resistance, meet the Revolution.
If the Colorado legislature sincerely wants to do something to help ensure that presidents are elected by the popular vote, they have real options within reach that could effect real change. First, Colorado can be the first state to call for a constitutional convention on the topic. We've amended the U.S. Constitution 37 times in our history, including changes to how America votes. Get to work. If that sounds too hard, then the Colorado legislature can change our laws to allocate our electoral votes in proportion to the votes each candidate received within the state. Some states already do this and, if every state did, the popular vote would win. Lead by example.
This electoral agreement is not noble at all. It's gutless and lazy. If our state legislators are serious about changing how America chooses presidents, then they should do serious things to get it done, not take symbolic actions doomed to fail.
